One question heard frequently throughout the law enforcement
community is, "Are performance appraisals really necessary?"
For years, police departments struggled to perfect their own performance
appraisal systems; however, it seemed that the harder many departments
worked to make a system meet their needs, the more they found wrong with
the system. Clearly, good performance appraisal systems do not make a
good department, but a bad system can be crippling and result in
inconsistent salary increases, employee dissatisfaction, low morale,
high turnover, and possible discrimination charges.

This article suggests ways that law enforcement agencies can review
their current performance appraisal systems. It also discusses the
importance of employee training in the area of performance appraisals
and provides an overview of the newly instituted pay for performance
system of the Sunnyvale, California, Department of Public Safety.

Rating Performance Appraisal Systems

Departments often overlook several issues when they examine their
current performance appraisal systems. These issues include the
effectiveness of the performance appraisal system, whether employees
know what management expects of them, and how well employees perform
throughout the year. In addition, departments often fail to consider
whether their systems allow for correcting or improving performance and
provide rewards for good performance. Taking these issues into account
can reveal both strengths and weaknesses in a department's
performance appraisal system.

Gauging how fully a performance appraisal system meets the following
requirements can also be a measure of a system's effectiveness.
First, the system must fit the organization. Forms, procedures, and the
frequency of review must depend on the size of the organization and on
the participants' training and sophistication. Second, all programs
should clarify what management expects of employees and should measure
employees' current performance. Programs should also instruct employees as to how they can improve their performance, if necessary.
Finally, performance evaluations must be thorough and provide an
unbiased evaluation of an individual's performance.

In order for a performance appraisal system to be effective, everyone
involved must understand it. Prior to the performance evaluation, rating
officials should explain all objectives and procedures to each employee.
These procedures should also be in writing and readily available for
reference. All participants must believe that the system is fair and
worthwhile. If, for example, the participants view the performance
appraisal system as a tool for consideration during promotional or
salary review, then it may be viewed as a high priority that
accomplishes its intended objective.

Law enforcement departments can also ensure a system's
effectiveness by requiring all rating officials and managers to have the
necessary skills to develop standards of performance, conduct appraisal
interviews, and help subordinates develop a performance improvement
plan. Departments should also establish controls and guidelines. If
managers have the skills, motivation, and understanding, they should
perform as expected. However, well-defined controls must exist in case a
manager fails to complete any assigned appraisals.(1)

Employee Performance Appraisal Training

In addition to the responsibilities placed on managers during the
performance appraisal process, departments should also thoroughly train
employees for their roles in the performance appraisal system. Managers
may not have given much thought to this concept, but training employees
in the performance appraisal process will help them to assume more
control over and responsibility for their own performance.

Managers and supervisors well-accustomed to carrying out performance
appraisals may find it difficult to accept the idea of training
subordinates to participate actively in the performance appraisal
process. However, training employees for their role in performance
appraisal has two major benefits. First, it helps to manage performance,
and second, it provides a legal safeguard against employees who might
otherwise become disgruntled or seek a court battle.

If management involves employees in the appraisal system from the
beginning and informs them of their progress or lack of it, then
employees may analyze their own work more accurately and direct less
anger or frustration toward their supervisors or the organization.
Employees who receive training also make the appraisal process easier
and more productive for their managers and the organization. They
require far less supervision and tend to make greater contributions to
the organization.(2)

There are many additional benefits of involving employees more
actively in performance appraisals. These benefits include higher job
satisfaction, lower turnover, and increased time for managers to pursue
other responsibilities.

The Sunnyvale Performance Appraisal System

In the mid-1970s, Sunnyvale, California, made a concerted effort to
develop a performance appraisal system that would encompass employees
involved in every major city function. To this end, the city developed
the "Planning and Management System," which demonstrates to
citizens, the city council, and program managers how the Sunnyvale
government operates. Sunnyvale designed the system to bring quality
service to citizens and to keep the city focused on addressing long-term
goals.

While California State law requires most cities to prepare a general
plan outlining the direction for their community, few, if any, use the
document as a foundation for all city planning and budgetary action.(3)
In Sunnyvale, however, the general plan lays the foundation for the
planning and management system.

The general plan consists of seven elements, including
transportation, community development, socio-economic concerns,
planning, culture, management, and environmental/management public
safety. All seven components focus on service to the community.

The Program Manager

In order to meet the general plan's requirements and provide the
best service possible, the role of the program manager becomes
essential. Ultimately, program managers bear the responsibility for
meeting the service objectives assigned to their programs. Each service
objective has one or more performance indicators or standards, which
serve to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the service being
provided. Service objectives reflect the policy statements and goals of
the city's general plan.

Daily, managers must make decisions as to the best methods for
providing services to the community given the budget restrictions. In
order to do this, program managers prepare annual management achievement
plans. These plans outline their assignments for the upcoming year,
according to legislative priorities set by the city council and service
objectives as reflected in the budget. At the end of the fiscal year,
the department audits these managers, based on the successful completion
of their assignments.

Service objectives play a critical part in the audits. Each month,
program managers examine reports that highlight the unit cost and
proficiency of a particular service. This information helps the
department to determine how well it met a service objective and allows
for quantitative assessment of the city's overall level of
providing quality service to its residents.

Management Achievement Plan Reports

Management achievement plan reports (MAPR) document the achievements
set forth in the management achievement plan. At the end of each fiscal
year (FY), the program managers prepare these reports, based on
established budget objectives and other job responsibilities. These
reports provide the basis for each department director's
performance evaluation by the city manager and city council.

The reports also provide program managers with the statistical data
on their unit's production that allow them to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of their program performance. For example, in FY
91, the Sunnyvale Public Safety Department's patrol units responded
to 8,487 emergency calls, 47 more than FY 89-90, without a police
vehicle-related accident. Eight thousand emergency calls had been
projected. Additionally, the department still achieved a response time
of 5.57 minutes per call (the plan projected a 6-minute response time),
with staffing at minimum levels during the majority of the year.

Pay for Performance

However, the Sunnyvale program does not stop here. It goes on to
offer bonuses and salary increases under its pay-for-performance
program. Under this program, it is possible for managers to earn
increases in pay if all objectives in their respective programs are
exceeded. Exemplary performance could mean a significant increase in
pay.

The pay-for-performance plan transcends traditional merit systems of
"step" pay increases with a program that is tied directly to
whether the policies of the city council are carried out. The basis for
this program is that if managers' pay is tied directly to the
success of council-mandated policy, managers will be more likely to
follow the course that the city council desires.(4)

Based on the MAPRs submitted by each manager and personal knowledge
of the manager's performance, department directors audit the
managers they supervise. The city manager then audits department
directors and approves or changes audits for managers throughout the
city.

The auditor prepares a narrative discussing each manager's
performance, also based on the MAPRs, and assigns a descriptive and
numerical rating corresponding to each section of the management
achievement plan. The auditor rates each section of the MAPR and then
applies the weighing factors to each part of the management achievement
plan to arrive at a total score. The composite scores, which determine
the manager's compensation for the coming year, are designed as
follows:

The audit determination for each part of the rating criteria is
weighed either at the high or low end of the scale. For example,
outstanding is either 95 or 100; good is either 75 or 80. Once the city
manager signs the MAPR, the audit and rating become final, and salary
and any performance bonuses are set in accordance with the management
compensation plan.(5)

Managers who receive ratings of 75 or more earn merit salary
increases of 5 percent or advancement to their respective control point
(CP), whichever is less. The control point is an employee's maximum
salary level. In addition, managers with ratings of 83 or higher receive
a performance bonus. (See table 1.) A performance bonus results in
advancement toward a control point in the salary range. Managers whose
current salaries are at the control point receive the entire bonus in
cash.

Managers with ratings of 70-74 do not receive a merit increase, a
performance bonus, or a performance sanction. Salaries for these
managers remain unchanged. Managers who receive ratings of 64-69 have
their salaries reduced by 2.5 percent. For those managers with ratings
of 63 or less, the department lowers their salaries by 5 percent.

Conclusion

The manner in which an organization conducts its performance
appraisals reflects its management philosophy. In order for a department
to obtain the best results from its performance appraisal system,
supervisors must be fair, impartial, and possess a sincere desire to
help employees grow and learn. As such, performance appraisals can
either improve employee behavior or become a source of irritation.

Therefore, any organization that considers developing or implementing
a pay-for-performance program must realize that it is not an easy,
short-term process, but one that requires the cooperation of everyone
involved. Additionally, any pay-for-performance appraisal system must
also provide employees who perform below standards with an opportunity
to improve their performance.

A periodic performance appraisal system should be constructive, but
candid. Ultimately, the system may become the best available method for
improving not only the relationship between management and employees but
also encouraging employees to fulfill their personal career goals.